The Instigator
IsaiahWood
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheUnexaminedLife
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Is Socialism, Or Capitalism, A more productive system over all?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 345 times Debate No: 123478
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

IsaiahWood

Con

I hope for this to be a mature conversation, And realistic, Or profanity and other thins.
I believe capitalism is a much more productive that socialism(communism especially) not only financially, But also morally I base that off of 2 Thessalonians 3:10, Which was used as a standard in the founding of Jamestown in America, Where hundreds were dying, After the rule things were flipped and there was productivity. Many Socialists also believe humans are a cooperative race as a whole, But I would say we are naturally competitive, In daily life and in the financial enterprise. Which is why it does not work, People want to have there own private property and materials, Not distribute what they earn to the government and other people.
That said, There are SOME social aspects that are needed in society, Like taxes, Fema, Military and etc(which we can bring up later).
I am aware not all socialist believe all that i have said, But over all that is the argument, Hope for a Good Debate :)
TheUnexaminedLife

Pro

We need to define what we mean by 'productive' in order to proceed. For instance it could be argued that capitalist ways of doing thing produce more unhappiness than in places where socialist policies are in effect. It could be argued that they produce cultures of objectifying people more than socialist countries. Some social historians have argued that capitalism played a part in causing the Holocaust -- the systematic slaughter of millions. I've heard Auschwitz described as a "factory of death" before. What do you want to define as 'productive' in order to stratify what you are claiming?

Capitalism is founded on two central ideas. The first is the calculated production of goods and services to create and respond to the demands of a people. The second is of motivating individuals to work by incentivising them with the potential to possess such goods and services. Socialism does not rule out the first from occuring. It only affects the latter by putting limitations on private property and designating certain parts of society and business as public property. Socialism can be just as productive as capitalist countries in the production of goods on a purely practical basis. It depends on the infrastructure of that country and how its industries and economy functions and interacts with other countries.

Just because we live in a competitive society does not mean all of mankind is naturally competitive. It is true that the motivation for possessing things and the competition between businesses in the free market is not emphasised in socialism. There are still incentives to work hard in socialism -- for power and status and social recognition.

Max Weber's thesis of rationalization is that from the inception of humanism onwards, European Christian teaching promoted a Protestant work ethic where work was equated with virtue. This motivated individuals and justified capitalism throughout the period of industrialisation and beyond. Citing the Bible does not make it moral.
Debate Round No. 1
IsaiahWood

Con

The fist thing you said was defining productivity, What I will use this word in reference to moral, Emotional, And economic "status" if you will. I would start by saying capitalism does produce happiness and a way higher level than socialism, Here is why.
Over all people in a capitalist societies are richer. Now we could argue if money produces happiness and moral virtues and ill mention that later.
We all know of the socialist regimes like soviet union, Venezuela, China(less now than it was, But that is changing to), Adolf's empire had many socialist aspects, Khmer Rouge. These empires were based on socialist and Karl Marx Communism ideas. I would like you to comment on this for a later discussion in the argument.
Now you said"putting limitations on private property and designating certain parts of society and business as public property" I would say that is a vastly under statement. Because government almost always takes advantage of these "limitations" turning the country to a regime of sorts. Look at Venezuela, It literally was one of the riches countries on the planet. Scaling high in oil production low unemployment (lots of jobs) and constant decrease in shortages. Then chavez won the election in 1999 and literally the whole whole country was flipped upside down. Every 21 minutes some person is murdered in Venezuela, Compared the Chavez before his election, A 900 percent increase in murders.

I also mentioned the bible because many moral foundations of America was founded off of it. "In God we Trust" is a common one, Which implies that God gave us individual rights and values.

That said, There are the extreme cases with capitalism as well, Where the government meant nothing, And there are no laws or foundations to the country, So In not saying we should go to where the economy is so free that there are no limitations. There should be a balance. Just promote a people based society not government based, Or history will repeat and government will take over.
TheUnexaminedLife

Pro

Marx was writing against industrial capitalism in 19th century England -- factories exhausting and putting their workers in abject conditions whilst the profit of their labours went to a few men. This production of unhappiness is what of Marx's writings has most endured as relevant. What he intended for society as a whole in theory of course has to adapt and change to the complex and dynamic world each country is a part of. Other left-wing economists like Keynes contribute to the debate. It's not capitalism or socialism either; policies can be picked from both -- and actually are -- so countries function better. There are a lot of 'nationalized' industries all over the world. I'm inferring that you're American (I'm English) -- Obamacare is an example of attempted socialist policy.

The socialist policies of the Nazis (free holidays, Workers rights, State control over industry, Etc. ) were quite positive for Germany if you read into its history. Those who write against socialist policies are quick to point out the countries the West has portrayed as evil: the USSR, China, And to a lesser extent Germany. Stalin, Mao, Hitler. They are less likely to mention India, Vietnam and Cuba (these latter two having a high reported quality of life). Corruption and bribery in socialist countries like Mexico today form oligarchic and not socialist states -- extreme forms of capitalism. The problem with socialism was that those who had power were corrupted by it and had too much influence over the distribution of wealth and of power. Having democratic limitations on power and a legal and executive power to sustain it-- like the US seperation of powers --would have prevented absolutist rulers from being corrupted by this power. Holding the corrupt to account is not exclusively something 'capitalist'. You would have to explain to me why if you thought it was.

GBD does not equate to a high quality of life. That was the problem of Thatcherism in the UK. Destroying communities for cash.
Debate Round No. 2
IsaiahWood

Con

It funny you brought up Obama Care, Because that was one of the worst. . . . . . Will say "events" that happened in America its the over distribution of good for a lesser amount, Which increases taxes on the rich, And middle class. Which intern splits the "high" economic class and the "low" class. Its similar to England in the 19th 18th and some 17th century. Where their were only 2 main classes poor and rich(i'm over simplifying that but u get my point). Now circumstances were different back then but i'm pulling that concept out.

Also, I'm not saying America is the most productive capitalist society, In fact what makes America productive is actual the Judaeo christian values thrown through out the country. In fact, Many middle eastern and (parts) of China have a lesser strict business restriction than America has. For example, In America you need all these licenses and productive career
choices to start a bushiness. But in many parts of Asia, Middle East (like Lebanon), All you need for a cooking business is a cart, Food, And fire. . . . Then You got your business. An essential part of the American Capitalist society is the value of productivity and truth, Something more foreign to China and Mongolia.

What was interesting was how you called Mexico, Other countries maybe like Stalin, "extreme forms of Capitalism. Mexico issue are more than just capitalism and socialism. . . . . Its the fact that they have no internal values for the individuals. A country can be capitalist and corrupt, That said its finely more common for socialist ideologies to become more corrupt.
Because what it does is centralize all the power of the nation to the government, While in capitalism there is constant competitiveness in the industry. When someone owns a multi million dollar business, They have a lot of power, But not all of it. Because many people own similar value business. Unlike socialist and communist ideas which centralize the power to one power predominately, The government.
TheUnexaminedLife

Pro

Your argument is beginning to sound more like 'America is best because I'm American. ' America does not have a monopoly on truth. It is precisely this attitude which means that the rest of the world judges the USA negatively -- thinking they're better than everyone else and then applying an interventionist foreign policy and colonializing other cultures with fast food and US culture. China, Japan and India are three of the largest economies in the world and are not culturally dominated by a Protestant work ethic but notions of family honour and determination and a fight against the conditions of their environment (particularly in Japan). They have highly organised industrial societies. They're not people with carts selling cabbages as you seem to (almost racistly) imply. 'The US is civilised -- they're barbarians. '

Socialist values are right there in Marx: human welfare over profiteering, An emphasis on human creativity and leisure time, Liberty and freedom from the exhausting cycles of work and consumption where you do a 9-5 so you can go home to watch trash TV and rest for the next day's work. They are usually corrupted because of the societies they are adopted in, Before adopting socialism, Are very poor and/or instable countries some of which still operating under monarchic-like rule instead of democracies where the power of government is limited by the law and is held to account by the people and executive powers of government. That's why socialist policies in the UK do not fail. The USA healthcare system is a mess -- inflated drug prices, Non-white races, Women and the poor statistically more likely to die than a rich white man. The UK free healthcare system (the NHS) is quite effective (although not without its faults).

Socialism does not rule out competition between people. Businesses and government departments and individuals still compete against each other for respect and authority. What you appear to be arguing against is authoritarianism not socialism.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by billsands 2 years ago
billsands
the nazis were not socialists they privatized major portions of their economy
Posted by billsands 2 years ago
billsands
china
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.